I guess my views can be summed up with another line from the Warwickshire Bard: "A plague o' both your houses!"

The only one involved in this mess that acted with a smidge of decorum was Vice President Elect Pence. He reacted with calm
statesmanship and rationality, not emotion.

I think the Hamilton cast were quite rude in their "ambush" of the governor. They could have recorded their speech as an "open letter" on YouTube and gotten the same results... without causing so many people to think they were spoilt boors.

I think President Elect Trump erred when he responded to it. His trolling use of the progressives' "safe space" language might have scored him a few points with some... But they were already on his side to begin with. It just makes him seem hypocritical and/or petty to the progressives that he should be trying to, well, if not "win over" at least "not piss off unecessarily."

If the next four years are going to be dominated by petty squabbles over inconsequential trivia like this...? Let's just turn off the lights, put out the cat, and declare the whole American experiment done for the day.

Well, speaking for myself as a non-Christian LGBTQ woman... I'm thinking its best to react to Trump's actions as president once he actually takes action as president. It's probably also best to react using reason, logic, and evidence. Not tantrums and emotional outbursts.

I didn't vote for Trump nor did I vote for Clinton. However, living in Portland — which went 78% for Clinton — I know a lot of Clinton voters... and in my professional life in the merchant shipping industry I run into a lot of the blue-collar types that did vote for Trump.

Many of the Trump voters that I know voted for the man reluctantly and with trepidation. But these emotional bullying tactics are just making it feel like Trump was the right choice.

I saw the cast's little speech as more smart-assed and lecture-y than bullying, but yeah, this is probably going to just get worse from here. Especially with Trump, who was a public figure of mockery BEFORE he got elected to the most mockery-probe position in the face of the Earth .

I will say I don't think Trump will be AS anti-gay as a lot of people are fearing. I think some of that just comes from him trying to appeal to the "base". While I don't agree with that strategy, it'll be interesting, especially as he's now publicly backtracking against some of his own promises.

badpenny wrote:I will never get in line with white nationalists and that's who's advising Trump. I really don't want to wait to see what they actually do. I'm terrified now.

Dismissing his advisors as "white nationalists" is part of the problem. We're never going to accomplish anything as a nation if the Left doesn't stop it with their "Literally Hitler" reactions to the election of anyone to the right of Che Guevara.

Likewise, the Right needs to drop their "ZOMG they's coming for my Bible!" reaction to anyone to the Left of Margaret Thatcher.

Speaking as someone who is, politically, well outside the sphere of both of the majority Left and majority Right, this sort of shit just makes you all look like nutters.

badpenny wrote:Pence is the problem re: the anti-LGBTQ+ community. Trump may not care--personally--one way or the other, but he might very well let Pence run his agenda.

Although, to be fair, half of the rumors surrounding Pence (leaching funds from AIDS prevention funds for conversion camps, passing laws to "jail gay couple for seeking a marriage", claiming that smoking is harmless) are the result of blatant fearmongering that has no actual basis in what he's said and done, but rather depends on other people saying "well, that's not what the law says... but that's what he wanted!" with no real proof, usually as brief Facebook memes that depend on people blindly re-sharing it without checking the facts.

That said, the man definitely does not approve of the LGBTQ lifestyle. It's just that the laws he's presided over are largely innocuous. As for Trump, I'm with Jab. He had no issues with the LGBTQ community before he started his presidential campaign, and I don't suspect that he's going to go on any grand crusade now. Admittedly, I don't think he's that passionate the other way that he'd veto laws against it either...

Its rare for me to post on non-comics/games/geek-related stuff, but in this case I'll make an exception. While there has been a good deal of exaggeration regarding Mike Pence's antics, but what he HAS done as a governor and congressman is still plenty to warrant the LBGT community and their friends/family/allies taking offense. He DID oppose an AIDS funding measure unless it also included monies going toward conversion therapy, a completely discredited practice which has been found by the psychiatric community to do potential harm while accomplishing no good. As Indiana governor, Pence did amend marriage application forms so gay couples applying for licences and state officials who sanctioned their unions COULD be charged with misdemeanors and fined, or fired in the case of state employees. He signed the "religious freedom" statute which allowed businesses which were public accommodations to refuse service due to their "spiritual/moral beliefs" (translation: turn down gay couples who wanted flowers, cakes, etc. for their wedding ceremonies), though economic pressure forced him to back down and modify the law. These are all acts of discrimination against a segment of the U.S. population, means of demeaning their worth. That's not OK in my book at all, and its far more outrageous than the cast calling him out for such behavior. The ex-governor was there for a reason-the optics would have looked good to buff up his image, as an act of "outreach"; but he's never apologized or renounced his stances, and doesn't deserve to get a pass.

Donald Trump likely has no prejudice against gay people at all. But he tapped Pence as VP to win over fundamentalists/evangelicals, his short list of SCOTUS nominees include justices who have taken anti-gay stances the past,and the possiblility of overturning the Obergell decision exists. He has even interviewed Franklin Graham for a post in his cabinet. In part, this is because Trump was anathema to most mainstream Republicans for most of the election season, and only relatively fringe figures and has-beens (Gingrich, Giulianni) backed him, with a few exceptions (Chris Christie)-so he's rewarding those who believed in him and proved loyal. But because of this, numerous groups have legitimate cause to be concerned. For my part, Pence's anti-science views alone make him dubious (he's a YEC, for example), and I dislike any public official attempting to legislate his/her religious beliefs. Your God may not be my God.

Eh, as regards the first two there, Snopes at the least disagrees with you. Yes, he suggested that funding go toward "changing behavior". But the conversion therapy line actually belongs to the lieutenant governor of California (something that Politifact even acknowledged even as they said "yeah, he said that... OK, someone else said it, but we totally want it to be him"). And the legislation specifically stated that officials who falsified marriage licenses would be subject to criminal penalties, and it even reduced that penalty from what it was before.

As I've argued (far too often) on Facebook with my friends, claiming provably false atrocities just weakens your case when the actual laws get passed. At the risk of treading on Godwin's Law, the Allies didn't believe in the reality of the concentration camps specifically because in World War I, the same atrocities had been alleged as propaganda, but had been shown to have not happened.

Batgirl III wrote:Well, speaking for myself as a non-Christian LGBTQ woman... I'm thinking its best to react to Trump's actions as president once he actually takes action as president. It's probably also best to react using reason, logic, and evidence. Not tantrums and emotional outbursts.

I didn't vote for Trump nor did I vote for Clinton. However, living in Portland — which went 78% for Clinton — I know a lot of Clinton voters... and in my professional life in the merchant shipping industry I run into a lot of the blue-collar types that did vote for Trump.

Many of the Trump voters that I know voted for the man reluctantly and with trepidation. But these emotional bullying tactics are just making it feel like Trump was the right choice.

How about just figuring out if it was the right choice by looking at his statements and actions, rather than because of a reaction to "emotional bullying tactics"? By that measure, I don't think it difficult to determine what kind of choice the man is for the office. And I agree not everyone who voted for him is a xenophobe or a bigot. Hell, I don't think Trump actually is-I think he's an opportunist and a con man. BUT-a lot more people were willing to vote for him despite all the heinous statements and outrageous behavior. And mostly I think a lot were willing to overlook it because they were gullible enough to believe promises that can't be kept-coal isn't coming back, not even if the EPA is abolished; its unconstitutional to ban/register/spy upon people solely due to their religion; the U.S. can't unilaterally renegotiate trade deals; Mexico isn't paying for big, beautiful wall, etc, etc. There really isn't any virtue in falling for promises one should know are false.

My father lacked a college education, and worked in a factory much of his life. But he wasn't uninformed, and he knew the score. He made it a point to learn about history, current events, and government. He would have been appalled at the anti-intellectualism and lack of regard for facts exhibited by the Trump campaign. And he would have excoriated those who voted against their own economic interests due to their credulity.

Standards have likely now been lowered permanently. Future candidates will now feel no compunction to release their tax returns, or to apologize/acknowledge obvious falsehoods, or refrain from crass behavior, or actually put their assets in a blind trust if they are elected. Why would they? It brought no penalty, only victory. Honestly-there were good reasons why even staunchly Republican newspapers refused to endorse the man-it wasn't just because he's "anti-establishment". But I'm just a humble citizen when all is said and done.

How about just figuring out if it was the right choice by looking at his statements and actions, rather than because of a reaction to "emotional bullying tactics"?

Hard to evaluate his actions as president prior to his inauguration.

Look, if Trump does decide to pull a full FDR and order every Japanese-Ameri... I mean Muslim-American rounded up and locked in a camp. Well, I got bolt cutters, a pickup truck, and a whole mess of rifles.

Until that day comes, I would like to introduce my friends on the Left (and remind my friends on the Right) of the old maxim: "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."

The progressives have been on their soapboxes on every college campus for my my whole lifetime (and then some) as well as dominating the soapboxes of teevee, film, theatre, and music for at least twice that time... They took a hit at the ballot box this cycle. A big one. But not an irrecoverable one... We're not on jury box yet. Certainly not the ammo box.

The progressive Left would be better served fostering and grooming better candidates. Sec. Clinton's been running for president for thirty years... Was she really the best the DNC could offer? Let's be real here, she had the full weight of the media, the party, the media, the Clinton family machine, the media, Wall Street, and several foreign governments behind her, but could still barely eke out a primary win against a septuagenarian socialist from Saskatchewan... Er. Vermont. Same diff.

Strategically, the DNC has no bench strength. Going into the 2016 cycle there were 31 Republicans, 18 Democrats, and 1 Independent holding the office of governor... It's now 34, 15, and 1 after the election.

The 114th Congress had 53 Democrats in the Senate and 201 House Democrats; the 115th Congress will see 46 Senators and 194 Representatives.

When it comes to state legislatures, Republicans hold a majority in 68 chambers and the Democrats only 30. By raw numbers there are 3,150 Democrat state legislators to 4,102 Republicans.

The average one of these Democratic lawmakers compared to their Republican counterpart is older, richer, disproportionately likely to have attended an Ivy League school, and probably lives in one of the ten most populous cities in the nation.

If the young men and women currently making my commute through downtown Portland wanted to really shake shit up, they should move to "flyover country," buy homes, raise families, make contacts, and run for office.

Here's the current state senate for Oregon, by party:

Notice how clustered the Democrats are around Portland and the urban Seattle—San Francisco corridor? The same pattern hold true for Oregon's lower chamber too.

It wouldn't take much (by numbers) to flip those eastern Oregon counties from red to blue. But it would mean doing the work.

The only optimism for me is that Maine introduced rank-choice voting state wide. That makes me very happy. If more states followed, we could actually have viable third parties. Up until Maine voted it in, only small municipalities like San Francisco had it. But at the state level, I see a glimmer of hope it will catch on.

Batgirl, you're correct in that I can't judge anything he's done in office yet. But I can look at his conduct and rhetoric throughout the past year, the campaign promises (either laughably false or unconstitutional) made, and the people with whom Trump has associated. Its entirely fair for me to watch him clearly state he intends to have the children continue to run his businesses, in defiance of all the conflicts of interests (yes, legally he isn't bound to do so, but this can cast massive suspicion on policy decisions), the figures tapped for the cabinet (even the rare decent picks such as Nikki Haley are being appointed to roles they have no expertise in-Ben Carson, despite his YEC foolishness, would be an OK surgeon general, but has experience for HUD secretary), and the continuing shameless lying (he didn't persuade an auto factory to stay in the States, they were never moving, he isn't being magnanimous in "not prosecuting" Hillary Clinton, because the President has no such power, the promise he would direct the military to commit war crimes (targeting civilians), etc, etc.

I'm glad you touched on the demographic issue: right now, 63% of the U.S. population lives in or near large cities or surrounding suburbs-but geographically that's only about 12% of the land area. These heavily populated clusters are overwhelmingly "blue" in a sea of "red" acreage. That's a problem. Right now, its clear the popular vote is going one way and the electoral college the other; in this year its because Democrats didn't turn out enough in PA and MI, but in a generation we could have a situation where the minority routinely overrules the majority time and gain in the U.S.

Regarding Hillary Clinton-while she wasn't my preferred candidate, and she had her share of self-inflicted political wounds, the idea she "barely eked out a victory" over Bernie Sanders is just a myth. She handily beat him by about 2 and a half million primary votes, won the majority of open primaries, and had a bigger delegate lead than Barack Obama held over her in 2008-and that's without super-delegates. And this leads to the second point-just about every analysis shows that Sec. Clinton's media coverage skewed negative, throughout the campaign. The Clintons are largely disliked by the influential beltway pundits, for a variety of reasons. And the press has admitted it "just couldn't figure out" how to respond to Trump, who simply refused to acknowledge obvious lies (such as a video showing thousands of American Muslims cheering 9/11) and brazenly breaking norms (refusing to release his tax returns). So they just collectively threw up their hands. Not good. A terrible precedent has bow been set.

But I'll end it here. I really don't want these boards to become other than what they are intended to be-a place where us geeks, nerds, and pop culture misfits can congregate for fun. All my best.